Subjects of Interest

Contributer Pages

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

I'm beginning to agree with the Republicans when I hear them say this. They are, indeed, a sorry bunch.

I'm so glad that I'm not the only one who finds the unending apologies completely idiotic. Ann agrees with me. Just today I was having a conversation with a friend on the topic of the fired U.S. Attorneys. Why in the world didn't the administration simply say: we fired them because we wanted to. Frankly, we don't need a reason. If you insist on having a reason, how about this: we didn't like the way they looked at us.

This constant defensiveness and apologizing smacks of weakness and a lack of understanding about how to fight a political opponent who wants to see you stumble and fall. You'd think that the GOP would have the Demo playbook figured out by now.

While I'm on the topic of weakness, why in the world hasn't Tony Blair issued an ultimatum yet? Release our Marines in 24 hours, or we begin the systematic destruction of your navy. Fail to release them after we sink your fleet, and we'll begin bombing Revolutionary Guard targets and oil refineries - the systematic destruction of your army and infrastructure.

Has the West lost its sense of self-preservation? Have we no pride any more?

Saturday, March 24, 2007

A friend of mine recently sent me the following e-mail, which I will share in its entirety. My comments follow.

"How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: 'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'

'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'

'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;2. from spiritual faith to great courage;3. from courage to liberty;4. from liberty to abundance;5. from abundance to complacency;6. from complacency to apathy;7. from apathy to dependence;8. From dependence back into bondage'

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St.Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.'

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom."

Now, I haven't independently checked the facts outlined above. I recall seeing that Red and Blue map shortly after both Bush victories, and the concentration of color by county was the most striking.

I just found a great link - go take a look for yourself: you can see the map by county for 2000 and 2004. Curious as to why I keep emphasizing the words "by county"?

While I acknowledge that there is a threat to our Republic from electoral apathy and illegal immigration, the bigger threat that goes unrecognized is our imbalanced government. We have densely populated centers of dependency dragging the rest of the nation kicking and screaming towards socialism.

I'll re-iterate one of my strongest governmental convictions: people should have the right to decide how much government they want, but only at the most local of levels; the smallest of spheres. If the people of Chicago, IL decide they want universal health care and education provided by "the government" that's fine with me if the residents of Cook County are the ones who pay for it. So it should be for any domestic matter - be it health care, retirement security, jet skis or gold chains. As long as the burden is shouldered by the residents of the same area where the beneficiaries reside, my philosophy is: have at it.

As I've also said before, I think that a properly balanced government will lead naturally, and eventually inevitably, to a limited government. Although I doubt it, there's a chance I could be wrong about this. Isn't giving it a try worth the risk, especially when what we're currently doing is obviously not working and when "giving it a try" is really just another way of saying "following the Constitution"?

I don't have a (working) crystal ball, so I can't tell you if my hunch - a defined timetable for pullout equals unmitigated disaster - is right. But I can comment on human nature.

Is this a pretty good day, or a pretty bad day, if you're a blood-thirsty terrorist who wants to see the United States humiliated and beaten? And what's your favorite American political party if you're the same terrorist?

It seems hard to imagine it being possible, but this vote will surely add more shame to the Democrat legacy of cowardice and defeatism.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

I'm horrified, and only hope that people remember how the enemy fights when having any conversation about the war. Simply put, these people want to kill civilians. We underestimate the seriousness of our action in Iraq and the ruthlessness of our enemy at our peril.

Am I alone in wondering if Allah told them to do this?

Anyone else surprised that this story was broken on conservative talk radio and the non-story about the 8 U.S. Attorneys is all over the MSM?

Sunday, March 18, 2007

No question, it's good, and I'm sure that subsequent seasons only get better. I have this theory that the first season of any show has bugs that get worked out, and that shows really hit their stride in seasons 2, 3, or 4.

Here's the problem with 24: it's basically an 18-hour movie when you watch it on dvd instead of once a week like most people would. I'd never decide to watch an 18-hour movie, and if you've watched the show, you know that there's a cliff-hanger every week.

Another gripe? It seems like there are 6 different writers for the show, and that they're playing that game we used to play when we were kids. You know, you're sitting around with a group of friends and you start to tell a story... we used to write it out on paper and cover up all but the last sentence. You pass it to your friend, who has your last sentence to start with and no idea what else you had in the story. For example:

"Ben shivered against the barn door. He had been running all night from the McGreevey boys, and was only now just catching his breath. The storm which had been threatening all afternoon was now in full effect. He was wet, cold, and exhausted. But most of all, he wanted to see his family again. He remembered those fine days that **(and this would be the last line, and all that would be showing)** he would spend by the lake, catching fish and skipping rocks."

Of course, this could go anywhere from here, and probably wouldn't have anything to do with what came before it. As far as writing goes, it's not very good. As far as comedy goes, it can be pretty funny. 24 feels like that when you watch it in 2 weeks on dvd.

(spoiler warning - first season information follows)

My last beef? The show stresses me out! How many times did his family get kidnapped, nearly escape, nearly get killed, nearly escape, nearly get killed, escape, get in an accident, get kidnapped, nearly get killed and so on? Look, I acknowledge there's an entertainment value to this sort of thing: I do like action movies. The difference is that a movie is usually 90 minutes and everything is wrapped up nicely at the end.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

I'm curious about your thoughts on the early candidates and not-yet-announced candidates for 2008 - and let's stick to GOP for now.

Feel free to sound off about any or all of the following: McCain, Guiliani, Romney, Gingrich or Fred Thompson. Am I missing some? Feel free to address those, too.

I'll share some thoughts of my own on what I like and dislike about each. We're still a long way off, but it'll be August before you know it and this is going to start to mean something.

THE MONARCHIST ADDS: I've gotta find more time for this sort of thing and not get started on it at 10:00 every night, LOL. Here's the thing about the names I mentioned... the only one who seems any good is Thompson, and that's probably because what little we know about him is this: he's no BS-er. McCain and Guiliani are both horrible. I heard Romney on the Laura Ingraham show last week, and he was all over the place. First, he was suggesting that abortion should be decided by the states (!! - what the deuce??) and then, two sentences later, he's quoting the DoI. I was at one time thinking he'd be the guy, but after that incoherent drivel, I'm so over Romney.

Talk radio is already playing the audio clips of Rudy talking up federally-funded abortions. And don't get me started on John "clean government" McCain.

THE MONARCHIST ADDS: I'm happy to see that the most recent (3/23) edition of the Patriot Post does a nice job of plugging Fred Thompson. But guys, what took you 8 days to get caught up with the American Federalist Blog?

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Mr. Hargis, you know I love you like a Brother, and that I continue to turn this over (and over, and over, and...) only shows how concerned I am about understanding where we differ.

You said something perfectly succinct in the comments from the last post: "To me, the question of whether the chicom regime is legitimate is almost beside the point. The fact is they are there, and they have a billion people at their disposal. Do we wait for the Chinese to win their own freedom, or do we start now and help them undermine totalitarianism every way possible?You know my answer."

If I can, I'd like to revisit an ongoing issue right here in the State of Illinois, and use it as a parallel to what we were discussing. As I mentioned in a prior post, Illinois is staring down a rather punitive Gross Receipts Tax. Blagojevich promised entitlements and got elected; now, he's attempting to make good on his promises. Given that Republicans are a minority in the General Assembly, there's a good chance that this will pass and become a reality. Consumers will be hurt by this: since this is a 1% tax before any expenses, this can and easily will be passed on to consumers. Businesses will leave the state or will source components of the manufacturing process from out-of-state companies.

All of this is bad news. But I'm not entirely unhappy. Allow me to explain.

This is how it is supposed to work, if you're a believer in balanced government like I am. We have the freedom to make mistakes, and they can be very painful. We already have a fiscal crisis, and may someday soon have a total disaster on our hands. I'm OK with that, as long as we learn from our mistakes and I grant you that's a big qualifier. I'd be much happier if entitlement spending were happening at the county level, because I'd at least have the option of moving, but thank God this is happening at the state and not federal level. Yes, I know entitlement spending is out of control at the federal level, but I'm speaking specific to Illinois right now. The governor is proposing taxes to pay for entitlements, which is at least in the right ballpark.

What does this have to do with the Chinese? Simple: I think sometimes - most times - things have to truly get worse before they can get better. That's just a part of human nature - we're disposed to suffer evils while they are sufferable. Do I want the regular Chinese citizen to suffer unnecessarily? Of course not. But if suffering is necessary to correct problems, isn't any attempt to avoid that hardship merely going to prolong the eventual pain?

Saturday, March 03, 2007

I'm starting a new post, because I want to take the discussion started under my Barack post in another direction. That, and 40 comments later the discussion has changed enough to merit another posting. ;)

I have a question, or maybe just a clarification...

"It is my position that the government has no business interfering with peaceful voluntary transactions, whether between me and my local Kroger, or between me and a Cuban cigar manufacturer."

Mr. Hargis, I don't disagree with your position, but I have been troubled as of late by the nature of our commercial and political relationship with China. I've started to notice talk radio - the Laura Ingraham Show in particular - beginning to pick up on this topic. I'm hoping you can discuss this with me.

I think that at some level, government has a responsibility to check the interests of private enterprise. After all, if men were angels, we'd need no government - isn't that true about human nature? If you accept this, you'll acknowledge that some people (certainly not a majority) are of weak character and will take advantage of others for their benefit. And since corporations are merely collections of individuals working as one legal entity, isn't it reasonable to expect that government has a duty to regulate business activities at some level?

I object to the sentiment that manifests itself on the pages of the Wall Street Journal Editorial page - that the United States is essentially America Inc. and that should be the basis for national decisions. There is a strong sentiment in this country that what is good for business is good for America, and I can't say I agree with this.

Our trading partner China is openly hostile and dishonest. That we can get cheap goods from them seems like a shortsighted mortgaging of our sovereignty.